# Speech Recognition in Noise: Analyzing Phoneme, Syllable, and Word-Based Scoring Methods and Their Interaction with Hearing Loss

## TL;DR

This study compares different scoring methods for speech recognition in noisy environments and how they relate to varying degrees of hearing loss.

## Contribution

The study introduces a framework for using phoneme, syllable, and word-based scoring to improve clinical audiological diagnosis.

## Key findings

- Phoneme-based scoring highlights basic auditory discrimination abilities.
- Syllable-based scoring captures temporal and phonological processing.
- Word-based scoring reflects real-world listening by using contextual knowledge.

## Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare different scoring methods, such as phoneme, syllable, and word-based scoring, during word recognition in noise testing and their interaction with hearing loss severity. These scoring methods provided a structured framework for refining clinical audiological diagnosis by revealing underlying auditory processing at multiple linguistic levels. We highlight how scoring differences inform differential diagnosis and guide targeted audiological interventions. Methods: Pure tone audiometry and word-in-noise testing were conducted on 100 subjects with a wide range of hearing loss severity. Speech recognition was scored using phoneme, syllable, and word-based methods. All procedures were designed to reflect standard diagnostic protocols in clinical audiology. Discriminant function analysis examined how these scoring methods differentiate the degree of hearing loss. Results: Results showed that each method provides unique information about auditory processing. Phoneme-based scoring has pointed out basic auditory discrimination; syllable-based scoring can capture temporal and phonological processing, while word-based scoring reflects real-world listening conditions by incorporating contextual knowledge. These findings emphasize the diagnostic value of each scoring approach in clinical settings, aiding differential diagnosis and treatment planning. Conclusions: This study showed the effect of different scoring methods on hearing loss differentiation concerning severity. We recommend the integration of phoneme-based scoring into standard diagnostic batteries to enhance early detection and personalize rehabilitation strategies. Future research must involve studies about integration with other speech perception tests and applicability across different clinical settings.